Time for drm-ci-next?

[Helen Koike]

On 24/06/2024 02:34, Vignesh Raman wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 15/03/24 22:50, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:28 AM Jani Nikula 
>> <jani.nikula at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Rob Clark <robdclark at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> When we first merged drm/ci I was unsure if it would need it's own
>>>> -next branch.  But after using it for a couple releases, a few times
>>>> I've found myself wanting to backmerge drm/ci changes without
>>>> necessarily backmerging all of drm-misc-next.
>>>>
>>>> So, maybe it makes some sense to have a drm-ci-next branch that
>>>> driver-maintainers could back-merge as-needed?
>>>
>>> That's a crossmerge instead of a backmerge, and I feel that could get
>>> messy. What if folks crossmerge drm-ci-next but it gets rejected for
>>> drm-next? Or the baselines are different, and the crossmerge pulls in
>>> way more stuff than it should?
>>
>> Yeah, it would defeat the point a bit of drm-ci-next was on too new of
>> a baseline, the whole point is to be able to merge CI changes without
>> pulling in unrelated changes.  So drm-ci-next would need to base on
>> something older, like the previous kernel release tag.
>>
>>> IMO the route should be drm-ci-next -> pull request to drm-next ->
>>> backmerge drm-next to drivers and drm-misc-next.
>>>
>>> I'm not opposed to having drm-ci-next at all, mainly indifferent, but I
>>> question the merge flows. And then the question becomes, does my
>>> suggested merge flow complicate your original goal?
>>>
>>
>> I guess we could avoid merging drm-ci-next until it had been merged
>> into drm-next?
>>
>> Basically, I often find myself needing to merge CI patches on top of
>> msm-next in order to run CI, and then after a clean CI run, reset HEAD
>> back before the merge and force-push.  Which isn't really how things
>> should work.
> 
> There are many CI patches merged recently to drm-misc-next.
> With the GitLab 18.0 release, CI/CD pipeline configurations must 
> transition from using the deprecated CI_JOB_JWT to the new id_tokens 
> method, as the former will be removed.
> 
> Without the below commit kernel-build job pipelines fail in drm-ci,
> https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/drm/misc/kernel/-/commit/cc806b74466672a9bbd4e9a04265d44eb506b686
> 
> We need to cherry pick only this commit to fix this issue.
> So it would be beneficial to have a drm-ci-next branch.
> 
> Regards,
> Vignesh


I don't mind using a drm-ci-next branch if it is created.

Thanks
Helen